(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.29 2014가단204948

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.29 2014가단204948

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the Yeonsu-gu Incheon apartment 101 Dong 608 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), Yeonsu-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment.

1. The Plaintiff shall deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant on March 16, 2012, which is the date when the contract expires.

2. The Plaintiff shall pay 50,000 won to the Defendant for rent on the 16th day of each month from March 17, 2011 to March 16, 2012.

3. The plaintiff transfers or subleases the right of lease without the consent of the defendant, or the benefit of the period of arrears is lost for not less than three months, and the above building shall be immediately handed over to the defendant.

4. When the lease contract expires or terminates, the plaintiff shall immediately deliver the apartment of this case upon the defendant's request without a separate title of execution.

5. The lease period may be reduced or extended by agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

B. On August 1, 2011, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for telephone damages with the Incheon District Court 201Da236 on the ground that the Defendant leased the instant real estate from March 17, 2011 to March 16, 2012 by setting the lease term of KRW 50,000 per month from March 16, 201. On October 17, 2011, a protocol of conciliation containing the following was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant protocol of conciliation”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, 6-1, 2, 45, 48, 49, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of the executory power of the conciliation protocol of this case by the lawsuit of this case, the defendant asserts that the ground for objection raised by the plaintiff is not a legitimate ground for objection, and thus, it should be dismissed.

However, as seen below, the plaintiff's ground for assertion can be the ground for objection.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.01.12 2014나55611

-서울남부지방법원 2021.02.04 2020가단250923

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.12.13 2016가단201189 (1)

-대구지방법원 2012.07.12 2011가단53109

-서울서부지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단254770